If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

There are a lot of them, and I've been learning that each of the different programs and their tone mapping algorithms render different looking images. In my novice HDR opinion having seen what the different programs can do, I would say the all around best are FDRTools and PhotoMatix.

FDRTools does a spectacular job rendering details but falls short in other areas such as skys. It tends to emphasize reds. It also tends to do a really good job when you have movement in your bracketed exposures, e.g. water movement.

PhotoMatix does a very good job overall, but does not render the details quite as well as FDRTools. Skys and clouds are one of its strongest suits.

One of the solutions is an HDR merge of HDR images or a simple layering/blending of two HDR images through PS.

It is very easy to go over the top with the effects, but sometimes an image that looks like a painting or even a cartoon does the trick. I've found it more difficult to get the image to have the benefits of HDR while maintaining that truly realistic look. One of the solutions I have yet to try is a merge of the HDR image with the original 0EV exposure in PS. This technique is supposed to help improve the "realism" of the image.

Thanks for those pointers, Darin.
I think the main reason I haven't bothered with HDR is that the images normally exhibited look pretty unnatural.
Don't get me wrong, some of them are interesting but hardly photographic.
HDR is essentially a way to extend the limited dynamic range of the camera, a good thing, but as usual people find ways to corrupt the original purpose (not necessarily bad).

Well ... as with anything, there are "limit-pushers" ... and that is not within the scope you are looking for, Peter.

HDR, if done properly, can literally save an image in ways people should not even notice (unless they are trying to spot it). The results are a real "solid" looking photograph, in my opinion, where the changes are so subtle and superior, all you get is an astounding looking image, technically better than Mother Nature can pull off, in her infinite wisdom.

One of the things they are stressing in school is how to make improvements to an image without revealing that it was ever necessary. The "perfect mistake", I guess.

Last edited by DonSchap; 04-22-2010 at 03:12 PM.

Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography A Photographer Is ForeverLook, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.flickr® & Sdi